The liberals are screaming for more gun control. But explain to me why in a state with one of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation the Sandy Hook massacre still happened?
Connecticut has strong gun laws that help combat the illegal gun market, prevent the sale of most guns without background checks and reduce risks to children, according to the Brady Campaign. In the organization’s 2009 state scorecards released for all 50 states, Connecticut earned 53 points out of a total of 100 and has the nation’s fourth strongest gun laws.
“Connecticut has done more than most states to combat illegal guns and has worked to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In fact, Connecticut has a one-of-a-kind law that allows a judge to remove guns from people who have been determined to be a threat to themselves or others,” said Ron Pinciaro, President of CT Against Gun Violence.
Connecticut bans assault weapons, judges can remove guns from those who constitute a threat, they earn high marks from gun control advocates for everything from dealer regulation to backgrounds checks and they earn the maximum score for guns in public places.
But still a crazy nut got some guns. How? By stealing them. This is how criminals and nutcases get guns, either stealing the guns themselves or buying stolen guns on the street.
So here’s the challenge for gun control advocates: explain why you failed the people of Newtown. You cited Connecticut as a national example. You said its laws “reduce risks to children.” You gave no state a higher rating for keeping guns out of public places — like schools.
And a criminally insane man stole legally-owned guns (owned under Connecticut’s regime) after being denied their legal purchase, broke in through a window, and killed children and adults — adults who were not armed to shoot back, and so died unable to save the children who also died.
You want this one event to be a national test? Fine. Why are there 20 children dead when the state of Connecticut did what you said they should to keep their people safe?
The restrictive gun control laws were supposed to save those kids….but they didn’t. A teacher with a gun could of but since only criminals can have guns in Connecticut that didn’t happen.
So let’s have that “conversation”
For once I agree with liberals. It’s high time to have a conversation about guns. Let’s start with the problem that there are far too few guns on our streets.
Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.
It’s just one more way the liberals want to control every aspect of your life. Unless you want to kill your unborn child that is….then they want the government off their back.
The “conversation” that the left side of the aisle wants to have about guns is simple: Any proponent of the 2nd Amendment, and its clear instructions, needs to sit down and shut up.
But it seems that in Connecticut, where there were 131 murders in 2010, oddly enough 20 of those murders were due to the use of knives or cutting instruments, 8 were due to weapons listed as “other” which would have included anything not a firearm, including baseball bats, and 6 were due to the use of a criminal’s fists. Ironically, not one murder was committed by the use of a rifle, and only one was due to the use of a shotgun.
The Newtown shootings have now provided the left with a crisis they have no intention of letting go to waste.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the “real” issue here ‘mental instability’??? Not ‘a’ gun, not ‘any’ gun…
Of all the tragic massacres involving a gun or guns, 99% of the time it is the “person” behind the gun…and usually we find out the person behind the gun has a history of mental problems, or is mentally unstable…
A gun cannot do anything on it’s own, it takes someone to pull the trigger…
A registered gun owner with a clear mindset will most likely use a gun to thwart what could be deemed a potential tragic situation….example – an armed robbery by a thief or felon who has an illegal gun… Funny no one even mentions lives saved by a registered gun owner who is trained professionally in it’s use…
Liberals usually have an agenda that is not well thought out…and the agenda’s broader impact is usually devastating to many people….but, they will never admit it….even when all the evidence is in their face…
Here is the type of “conversation” that the Democrats want to have, along with being the dumbest statement of the day: (I am not going to quote verbatum but you will get the drift)
Congressman Mark Warner (Va-D) said in an interview that his two daughters asked him why we had to have assault weapons. He said that as a member of the NRA, he questioned people’s right to have “rapid-fire” clips.
Obviously Warner is privy to a new kind of clip for firearms that hasn’t made it to the general public. And if they have not made it to the general public, then how do we have availability to them?
Not to mention that the Newtown shooter did not use an “assault” weapon. But any modern styled gun that doesn’t look like a Colt Peacemaker is viewed by the left as an “assault” weapon. How do you have a conversation about guns when the people trying to control the dialog are so damn stupid?
That is exactly right.
A young man attempts to purchase firearms, but is denied. He then goes and steals his mother’s firearms, killing her (before or after, it’s not really clear), and then goes on a killing rampage.
And the left’s answer is to restrict and remove firearms from those who abide by the law.
The left’s answer is to address a symptom, not the problem itself.
This seems to be the pro-gun argument du jour. The desperation of this argument speaks volumes because its practicability and sensibleness fall apart under minimal scrutiny. First of all, is this mandatory? In other words, would one have to to be willing to carry a gun, and be trained in how to operate a gun, in order to become a first grade teacher? How many first grade teachers, I wonder, are willing to do so? Are we firing those who won’t? Are we satisfied with the idea of people with no particular skill or affinity for guns discharging them under incredible duress in the vicinity of our children? What about the parents who don’t want their children around people carrying firearms? Do they have a say in this “solution”? And what about the first armed teacher who snaps in a school? Or the first accidental discharge, or the first student who gets a hold of a firearm? There are 100,000 public schools in America: are we going to say these things that happen thousands of times a year in private residences won’t happen at schools when we’re adding thousands of guns and individuals with guns into a closed environment with our children? And who is paying for this training and these guns? Should we just arm the students and be done with it?
The only sensible focus is stopping potential school shooters before they act, not waiting for the incident. According to the Secret Service report on school shootings, most of these attacks are not impulsive, so the first priority should be a serious initiative to educate the public, parents and school administrators to focus on tell-tale “behaviors and communications” for warning signs. And of course, our mental health system will need to be given the resources and mandate to address those who require attention.
Secondly, according to the report, “Most attackers had access to and had used weapons prior to the attack”, the implication being:
These aren’t just sickos who run out and magically acquire guns on the way to the school. These are premeditated crimes where one of the most significant warning signs is “any effort to acquire” a weapon. The Columbine murderers acquired their guns through friends over months’ time, for example. A culture that supports unfettered and unquestioning access to weapons without sensible regulation and measures aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed is a culture in which we allow shooters to fly under the radar much easier on their final decent. We have no idea how many shootings haven’t happened because potential shooters had no easy access to guns,but it’s just common sense to assume the easier it is for a shooter to get his hands on a gun, legal or otherwise, the more likely the chances of an incident.
For those who are interested, from SS report:
20 plus 8 plus 6 is 34. That leaves 97 weapons conveniently unaccounted for. I wonder what caused those murders.?
Possibly, unless of course one of the 24 firearms categorized as “Firearms (type unknown)” is a rifle.
Here is another possible solution proposed by libertarian Megan McArdle. As long as it doesn’t have the word “gun” in it, anything is apparently on the table:
Yeah, I’m not sure that I’m buying that particular argument, either. I’m not so sure that an armed teacher or two could have stopped the killings from happening, or that having armed teachers in school would be all that smart, either.
What should be addressed, though, is the labeling of a building, whether it be a school, a movie theatre, campus buildings, or any other building, as “gun-free”. I fully believe that most of the people willing to commit murder, would have second thoughts about particular areas or buildings as targets, if there is just the possibility of someone at those places who could provide armed resistance. Not in all cases, mind you, as I highly doubt the most recent attacker would even register gun/no-gun targets. I believe his was specific, based on his history. But for most, yes, I believe that the simple possibility of armed resistance would be enough.
That is kind of detailed out in the Colorado theatre shooting, where several theatres were within the same general driving range of the attackers home, and the one he chose wasn’t even the closest, but it was the only one to advertise being “gun-free”.
Gee, what a shock, ANOTHER rights hating fascist wannabe pops on to tell us how wrong we are to demand our rights. Shove your strawmen where the sun doesn’t shine, tom.
As for claiming an armed teacher could not have stopped the attack, one need only to look to Israel.
Now STFU you P.O.S.
I am quite tired of you Constitution hating vermin.
John, one other interesting detail from the report (which I highly recommend checking out), is that almost all these incidents take place very quickly: “Close to half of the incidents were known to last 15 minutes or less from the
beginning of the shooting to the time the attacker was apprehended, surrendered or stopped shooting (47 percent, n=16). One-quarter of the incidents were over within five minutes of their inception (27 percent, n=9).” Many modern schools are quite large. Unless you’re arming the entire staff, the chances of a teacher even having a chance to intervene before it’s over is no guarantee. And again, we’re talking about teachers, not emergency responders. And what about liability? A town would go bankrupt if an accident happened. It would cost a fortune in overtime, but I’d rather see an off duty officer stationed out front in a cruiser, if it were my town, and it came down to that or a teacher carrying a gun. It’s a trained person, outside the school, and a much larger deterrent.
I also think we’ve seen the end of glass doors on schools. The actual structural security is another topic that hasn’t gotten as much attention, but that could make all the difference.
I see you’re adding your usual level of substance to the conversation. Bravo.
I see you have abandoned the last thread where you and I were having a “conversation” about firearms. I say “conversation” because you don’t debate, you just throw out your opinion with few facts.
Now, perhaps you would like to answer in this thread the questions I asked you in the thread you abandoned?
Do you support more restrictive gun laws?
Do you support more restrictive vehicle ownership laws? (since in 2007, almost four times as many Americans died in vehicle fatalities than were murdered)
Do you suppor more restrictive laws for the ownership of kitchen knives, pocket knivers or baseball bats?
Do you support the registration of hands which are often used as lethal weapons?
Do you have any examples of how more restrictive gun laws have prevented any crime, murder or otherwise, or how states that have enacted more restrictive gun laws have seen a reduction in gun related crime?
Again, you debate from a point of emotion, not a point of facts. If having teachers armed is such a wrong headed thing, tell me why there have been no mass shootings in Israel in decades.
Apparently, the principal lunged at the maniac in an attempt to subdue him (may God bless her). In a Liberal state is this legal?
Teachers and students or anyone but a cop is supposed to be a willing target in a gun-free zone, resistance is a criminal act and infringes on the Constitutional rights of a criminal to commit mayhem until the authorities arrive.
Suppose she would have bee successful and paralyzed the disadvantaged youth with an overhand right to the head. Would she be losing her job or would she be facing hard time in the slammer?
Now, the ultimate question and supposition: if she was worried over the welfare of her students because of a vague tip, and was carrying an ACP 45 and put a round between his running lights before he warmed up his barrel on the children, would the parents be demanding her incarceration or would she be hailed as a hero?
Remember, this is a Liberal state and the willingness to accept victimhood is part of the legal fabric.
Limiting magazine capacity will have about as much impact on this issue as the logic of making school buses shorter so when some unlic drunk bus driver rolls it off the road…..fewer children will be killed.
Skook really is loopy. Maybe he ought to drop the s
Anyway, my grandfather didn’t use an assault rifle to hunt deer in Northern California.
I understand the joy and pride of owning a powerful gun like that. It’s fun (if you have the money for ammo, like $15,000) to go to one of those open air ranges down in Tennessee and fire away.
Or take a rifle and use the scope to hit the trigger that will cause the old rusted car to explode.
Definite rush, almost like an orgasm.
And the fellows with these guns are not nuts like the mass murderers.
But there’s no need to have an assault rifle. If you let them be banned, what’s going to happen? God send you to the fiery pits of hell, letting you see the glory of God but then let you live with you knowing you will never be there?
Looking for counsel North of the 49th where a liberal mindset and politically correct population has compelled it judicial system, the answer is – Absobloodylutely.
As you know, in Canada your home is not sacrosanct. You cannot defend yourself with force, and if you use a gun to defend yourself, your home, your family, your life as you know it is over. And that’s if you even fire in the air. Lord help you if you injure the intruder.
You’re missing the whole deterrent effect of having ANY teachers armed in a school, Tom.
Remember the guy who shot up the theater playing the Batman movie?
He had to drive further than 6 other theaters to get to the first one with a BIG SIGN that said no guns were allowed inside.
That sign was why he chose that theater.
Put even one or two teachers (which one or two???) in a school and even crazy people weigh their chances.
“A registered gun owner with a clear mindset will most likely use a gun to thwart what could be deemed a potential tragic situation…”
Mass killings have been perpetrated by sociopaths who society has allowed to be in possession of weapons of moderate destruction. In the case of Adam Lanza, his mother advised his babysitters not to turn their back on him and not to let him out of their sight, including not going to the bathroom while they were baby sitting him. Yet, she trained her sociopathic son how to fire weapons. Her training was so effective that he killed 26 out of the 27 he shot. Only one was wounded and survived. Her most serious crime was not securing her weapons.
Adam Lanza only needed the access to weapons to carry out his horrific purge of first-graders and grade school staff. He would not have been deterred by the threat of pistol-packing teachers, administrators and custodians. He deemed his life an agony. He wished to end it. But first, he wished to go out in a blaze of glory, taking out his rage on 6 and 7 year old kids. Our careless weapon control laws allowed it.
Shame on those of you that would enable these horrors.
The principal and psychologist gang-rushed Lanza and died. Should the grade-schoolers have been trained to gang-rush the shooter? There were over 600 of them (20 less, now). Surely some of them could have interfered with his spree.
We should embark a training program where every student and teacher in America, every mall-shopper, retail store clerk, hospital employee, etc., learns what to do if a lone psychopath chooses to end his life by killing scores in a public setting with legally acquired weapons. Or…we can do what we can to keep murderous weapons out of the hands of sociopaths.
@james raider: This idea of training and arming teachers is academic at best in Liberal jurisdictions; since, they are just as vulnerable to prosecution as the homicidal maniac. They would not even be legally entitled to defend the children with just their hands or a baseball bat. They are to accept their fate as victims, unless they can run and hide.
This philosophy of victimhood is coming to a jurisdiction near you. It is part of the Liberal mindset, like not talking in disparaging ways of your enemies on the battlefield or being cowardly in the face of an aggressor.
The sooner you stop this notion of depending upon yourself for self-protection and accept the idea that the power of the state will protect you from all harm and evil, the sooner you will be a compliant drone of the state and be willing to accept the omnipotence of the state and its leaders.
Do you suppose this is why it is illegal to defend yourself and your home in Liberal jurisdictions; surely, the welfare of criminals is not all that important or relevant to the Liberal, but if Lanza had survived, he would have been spared the death penalty and great efforts would have been made to rehabilitate and cure him of his psychological problems.
One way to stop gun violence in the USA is to get rid of ALL guns within our borders. If crooks can’t steal guns, then they can’t use them. This would mean that we would have to depend on local, state, and federal governments to protect us. I live in a town, and in a state that I feel VERY safe in, but I am feeling less and less save under the rule of King obama. As I have mentioned before, if the county does fall under this tyrant king, Idaho will be one of the last states to fall.
Phillip Marlow, what do you define as an “assault” rifle? You know, the ones you want to ban. One that looks scary? Please advise. $15,000 to shoot? Maybe if you quit trying to have an orgasm blowing up old rusted cars, it wouldn’t cost so much.
Tom, if the Columbine kids were acquiring weapons, they were doing so illegally. Are you wanting to restrict law abiding citizens rights based on illegal actions of criminals?
Rocky butte. Adam was too young to purchase the weapons legally, he lived a state with a progressive gun control law and it didn’t stop him, nor was he allowed to have them. How do you know he plotted it for months? He’s not talking.
Call me suspicious, but I don’f think any of you three are looking for a solution (or read all of sortalibertarian Megan McArdle’ s essay), We have an example of twisted evil and yet some ignorant law will be passed to add to the 20,000 others but it will do nothing but make people say they did “something”. It will also, more than likely restrict law abiding citizens freedom. If you are serious about solutions, look into mental health laws,treatments and self determination for those incapable of it and medications. Meds play a large part in behaviors, emotions, etc. Funny, no one, save a few, are talking about that.
Shame on you three for using this tragedy to rehash the tired old gun control meme and not looking for any real solutions.
@johngalt: How would you address the problem itself—as opposed to the symptom?
@Tom: Well said.
@retire05: Although you reduction ad absurdum may seem persuasive to some, we must consider certain limitations. For example, a person recently went on a rampage in China, wounded 27 people—I believe—with only a few dying—as opposed to the 26 people killed with firearms recently in Connecticut. Conclusion: The argument fails in that the implied analogy of the potential of firearm destruction is unequal to the the of other forms of manually caused death.
Also, the accompanying graph shows a radical decrease in gun violence during the period of the assault weapons ban— “… the number of mass shootings per year has doubled since the ban expired.” (And were less that existed before the ban.) Though the statistics do not show a 100% deterrent rate, at least the are suggestive—except to those who are so closed minded the can’t see farther than their nose. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/
The Israeli example isn’t very help either, in that there’s a cultural difference between them and us as far as domestic mass violence is concerned—although I agree that an armed police force in every public place would be a deterrent to violence, both domestic and foreign. So, let’s turn the entire country into an armed police state, okay?
Keep in mind, I’m a liberal who believes in the right to carry and bear arms for personal protection. However, I don’t believe they will help us much against a tyrannical government—who currently has us radically out-gunned, compared to the situation during the American Revolution.
Not my point. When people who are possibly or certainly disturbed are stockpiling weapons, that should be a warning sign, but apparently for some it’s just a sign of a healthy adolescent hobby, no different than collecting baseball cards. Gun advocates want to take no responsibility for gun deaths in this country as a whole, yet meanwhile 40% of the guns in the US are sold without background checks through a legal loophole, which clearly violates the spirit of the law, all commons sense, and any sense of responsibility towards their fellows citizens. Furthermore, many dealers or third parties knowingly sell to people who they know can’t pass a background check, or transport guns across state lines to resell. Yet these same people wash their hands of responsibility when an illegal gun in a flooded market finds its way to a killer, and their solution is that more guns will solve the problem. These same people who sneer at the concepts of honest dealings and responsibility, lecture the rest of us on the Constitution while we’re ducking for cover. At the end of the day, and despite all the high falutin trappings of their rhetoric, these people in the NRA and the gun industry are only interested in one thing, and that’s their bottom line, and this shooting is just a business problem to overcome. While they officially remain silent, we can see their proxies begin to float their marketing strategy: guns solve everything, including mass gun murders.
I don’t know, Lib1, as I am not a psychiatrist. But the firearms used are not the problem. The only thing that the firearms allowed the killer to do was to kill more victims than if he had a large knife, machete, or baseball bat. And considering that he used the firearms illegally, after obtaining them illegally, no new gun laws would have prevented this from happening anyways.
Limit high capacity magazines? So he would have had to reload more often, and considering that the kids were taught to hide under their desks, the targets still would have been there. Not to mention that someone trained on firearm use can replace magazines pretty damn quickly.
Limit “assault” type firearms? Say they were outlawed. Again, all it would have done is to increase the time it took to kill those people, but not by very long. And “assault” type firearms are used in only 1-2% of all murders in the US, or, at about the same percent as their share of all firearms in the US.
Longer wait periods? What does this matter when the killer obtained the weapons illegally in the first place?
More invasive background checks? See above.
Do you realize that Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation? How did that work out for those kids? Law abiding citizens aren’t the ones who killed those teachers and kids, Lib1, so why do the liberal/progressives want to limit their rights?
What are you going to ban and what difference do you propose it will make? (as to Tom’s timeline)? Mags can be reloaded in seconds. It would have made zero difference in the outcome of this had this nutjob been using multiple 10 round mags. It takes 3 seconds to change mags.
What difference does removing the “tripod” or handgrip or folding stocks or the bayonet lug or flash suppressor make to any of those points that gun control advocates claim they are addressing? It would change “nothing”. It would not stop nutjobs from being born. And it certainly would not solve or even address the problem of “why” we have young people who want to do this? I listened to Piers Morgan last night rail on about how this mentally impaired kid was “allowed to purchase” an “assault rifle” and that it was easier for him to get than buying a pet. He did not buy these guns. He took them from his Mom’s unsecured stash and then killed her. How does anything proposed by gun control advocates thus far prevent that?
We could propose to monitor anyone who’s under mental health care to be registered and/or monitored and or put on a gov watch list (same way pedophiles are). We could start viewing “any” teenager with social deficiencies a threat to our society and isolate them and monitor them. THEN what kind of society do you have? Certainly, you’ll be hearing from the ACLU on the rights of those individuals.
And you cannot ban weapons here of any kind. IT is FAR too late for that. No matter what they come up with to make themselves feel better as to “doing something” about this…..there are already millions of guns out in the hands of people (including the guns that they will wish to ban). And manufacturers will, once they place a ban, ramp up production to have “plenty” of those weapons for sale years after the ban takes place. Or, as with last time…just make a few cosmetic adjustments to it and sell the same weapon that otherwise has the same destructive capability. They blame gun manf for that. But, people have been telling these people for years to educate them selves about this before trying to pass laws on it. It wasn’t gun manf fault that Dianne Fienstien doesn’t know the difference and didn’t care …and believed she was actually limiting the capability of the firearms by taking off a flash suppressor or a pistol grip or the mag to 10 rounds.
There is no deterrent for the people who commit such crimes (stiffer sentences, etc) cause most of them kill themselves after doing it anyway. The few who don’t are usually so bat shit crazy they don’t even know what planet they live on.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): #25
My hope is that if it comes to that, the ones behind the guns will realize what our king has in for his kingdom, and point their guns in the right direction.
I don’t think that you achieved full reading comprehension of the article you linked, Lib1. While you cherry-picked one sentence, about mass shootings “doubling” since the “assault” weapons ban law expired, you missed these;
And, as I pointed out in my posting above, limiting “assault” type weapons, or high capacity magazines, would have very little effect in the amount of carnage someone can inflict if that someone is competent with reloading a firearm.
Also, as I pointed out, and the article itself supports this(although their percent is higher than anywhere else I’ve seen), that “assault” type firearms make up 1.7% of all privately owned firearms in the US. That happens to be the same, or near enough, percent of murders, using firearms, that “assault” type firearms were used to commit. What that ought to tell you is that a ban on “assault” type firearms will only drive the person committing the murder(s) to use a different type.
I disagree, and it’s based on numbers, Lib1. Putting aside the tanks, planes, drones, and all of that for a minute, the military is made up of around 500-600k people. Of that, only 250k or so are trained in light weapons use. Now, compare that to the 150-plus million homes having an estimated 250 million-plus firearms. And out of those 250 million plus firearms, there are approximately 4 million plus “assault” type weapons. The numbers are in the favor of the citizens, Lib1.
RE: Limiting high-capacity magazines
Just to add to this…
Whenever your liberal friends talk about “limiting high-capacity magazines”, ask them what is being banned. A magazine is a box with a spring in it. The hardest thing to make or modify is the part that snaps into the handle of the gun. How hard is it to buy two 10-round plastic magazines, cut them, and glue them together to make a bigger one? You’ll need to piggy-back the springs to increase the tension, or buy a new one at the hardware store. But it’s trivial. And you can test the results in your house without firing the gun. Tune it until you get it right.
Bottom line: banning high-capacity magazines is stupid because it’s a law that too easy for bad people (e.g. those planning a mass shooting) to work-around. It only affects law-abiding citizens, and that is, of course, the intent.
Furthermore, high-capacity magazines are exactly what is needed for a single home-owner or shop-keeper to defend their lives and property against several attackers.
RE: “I don’t believe they will help us much against a tyrannical government”
History is not kind to this view. An armed citizenry greatly increases the dangers for an occupying force and significantly increases the level of discomfort for governments to become tyrannical. As evil governments (e.g. the Nazis) planned to tighten their grip on the population, the first step is always to disarm the citizenry.
RE: The absence of government
The other big reason for citizens to own weapons like this isn’t just our government going out of control, but the absence of government. During several recent disasters, authorities were MIA for days. Examples include Katrina, Sandy, Hurricane Andrew. The LA Riots stand out, too: the police withdrew, leaving citizens at the mercy of the mob.
When your government openly tells you that when disaster strikes, you are responsible for looking after yourself for 72 hours, people should consider what that means.
If the Federal government goes broke — and it certainly looks as though we are headed that way — and if they continue to debase the currency by “financing” two-thirds of the debt, then we may well end up with a country where the State cannot feed those that receive direct benefits from the State. In our case, that is essentially the majority of the population. Will those people quietly sit down and starve? I doubt it. I think that they will go looking for food and shelter. If you have what they want, do you really think that the Police force, which isn’t being paid anymore, will protect you from a starving mob?
Good luck with that.
On the high capacity magazines, a limitation wouldn’t have mattered much on Friday. I’ve heard that the shooter used 30-round magazines, and shot around 120 bullets. That is four magazines. If the shooter is trained well enough, which appears to be the case on Friday, we’re talking about a few short seconds to switch the magazines, assuming no loading issues. Let’s say that five seconds are required, which I assume is typical by even the most modestly trained people. The shooter swapped out mags 3 times. That is 15 seconds. Now let’s assume that a limitation is placed on mag capacity, and that the shooter actually followed this law, and that the limit was 10-round mags. That is 11 swaps of mags, and 55 seconds. Only 40 seconds more of “down-time” between firings. And given that many of the children were taught to hide under their desks, it is improbable that such a limit on magazine capacity would have mattered, and we would still have 20 children dead.
However, and piggybacking on your point, in the case of someone protecting their home or place of business against several attackers, that 40 seconds saved could very well mean life or death, if 120 shots were what was needed to deter the criminals.
This is why such limitations, why they might make people feel safer, don’t actually accomplish anything of the sort, and tend to make it less safer for the law-abiding people using their weapons for defense.
Those limitations on “high capacity mags”, or “assault” type firearms, or bullets in your possession, or carrying on your person, or the 30-day waits, aren’t going to matter a whole lot in situations where you are going to have to protect yourself. What’s more, it is clearly evident that such laws, assuming you are the law-abiding type, will hamper your ability to protect yourself and your loved ones. That ought to make you feel great, when the crap hits the fan, so to speak.
According to one chart on mass shootings, the numbers are:
during the assault weapon ban:
1996 – 1
1997 – 4
1998 – 5
1999 – 4
2000 – 4
2001 – 6
2002 – 2
2003 – 3
The ban was lifted in 2004:
2004 – none
2005 – 2
2006 – 4
2007 – 3
2008 – 4
2009 – none
2010 – 3
2011 – 5
2012 (to date) – 7
I find it ironic that the number of mass shootings (two or more deaths) has increased markedly in the last two years of Obama’s first term. I am not saying that his policies have had anything to do with that, but I am not going to discount the notice of it, either.
Your Washington Post link (which does not give the source for its chart) also holds this money quote:
“Did the law have an effect on crime or gun violence? While gun violence did fall in the 1990’s, this was likely due to other factors. Here’s the UPenn study again: “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.
In other words, Lib1, the ban did nothing to reduce gun violence. NOTHING.
But whast about gun related homicides in the U.S. since the gun ban was lifted? According to the FBI web site, gun related homicides have decreased since 2006, two years after the ban was lifted, from 10,225 in 2006 to 8,775 in 2010, in spite of the fact that since 2009 we have seen and increase in our population and record gun sales.
The University of Virginia has done yoeman’s work on violent crime in U.S. schools. One such reports states:
“contrary to public perception, violent crime in schools has declined dramatically since 1994. The annual rate of serious violent crime in 2007 (4 per 1,000 students) was less than half of the rate in 1994.”
The knee-jerk reaction to any tragedy like this is for the left to come out and immediately scream for more gun “control.” The federal government, along with state governments, react to these incidents thinking, wrongly, that more restrictive gun laws will prevent these kinds of tragedies from ever happening again. But why is it only guns that the left targets?
Andrea Yates killed all five of her children by drowning them in a bathtub. Did the idiots in D.C. scream for us to have greater control over who is allowed to use bathtubs and water?
Timothy McVeigh, along with Terry Nichols, murdered 168 people, 19 of them children, using a Ryder truck and fertilizer. Did the idiots in D.C. scream for us to have greater control over who can rent a Ryder truck or ban the sale of fertilizer?
19 radical Islamists murdered almost 3,000 people using box cutters to take over commercial planes. Did the idiots in D.C. scream for us to have greater control over who can buy a boxcutter (called a utility knife) or want to limit not only air traffic but the number of planes allowed to fly?
As to private citizens having the weapons that could ward off any oppression from the U.S. government, that is not the point. The point is that the 2nd Amendment was written to at least give us a chance against an oppressive government. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, skeet shooting, or gun collection, antique or otherwise. It has to do with our ability to defend ourselves against one thing; the government.
You say that Isreal is not a good example because of the difference in culture. Yet, your fellow libs like to use other nations, who also have different cultures than the U.S., as examples of how gun control (confiscation) works. You can’t have it both ways.
People argue that teachers and school leadership should not be armed. Yet, we trust our children with these school officials in so many other ways. We allow them to drive our kids to school, allow them to be alone with our children, allow them to educate them so, hopefully, they will become productive citizens. Yet, your side will claim that teachers and school leadership cannot be trusted with a firearm. How aburd is that?
You have no argument. Gun related crimes, in spite of the sunsetting of the assault weapon ban, record guns sales and our increasing population, are decreasing, not increasing.
Now, what do you propose to reduce the number of vehicle fatalities since that number is representative of almost 4 times as many deaths as gun related deaths?
Your father clearly didn’t teach you anything about firearms, thinking for yourself, or using you brain.
Every time you post here the site IQ goes down. Go back to DUNG, KOS, or Huffpo where they will think you a genius.
Interesting that you both hold Israel up as a superior model in regards to gun laws. I think you might actually be onto something. Let’s look in detail what you’re advocating for (from The Jerusalem Post, emphasis added):
Excellent comment, thank you.
Your last question:
I’m pretty sure that is rhetorical. Can vehicles be used to defend against Commie tyranny?
Not so much as guns. In other words, it’s not about the deaths. It’s about getting the nation to the point where it cannot defend against another Holodomor, Shoah, Killing Fields, or Great Leap, umm…
Hard Right Mata reminded me the other day you had commented on how you planned to moderate your hatred and hyberbole. She asked how you’re doing with that?
Tom Great post explaining Israeli gun control.
And it is the same with other “caring” Progressive policies in America.
The environmental movement similarly does not give half a s**t about the Earth, Gaia, the sacred “environment”. They don’t want to halt energy production and fossil fuel extraction. They just want to end it here. They don’t want to end pollution from manufacturing — they want to end American manufacturing.
They don’t want less “illegal wars”. They just want their Party to be in charge of them.
They don’t want to COEXIST. They want to murder anyone who disagrees with them, and most would not only push, but jump up and down on just to be sure, a button which would immediately cause violent, prolonged, painful, torturous death to any “knuckledragging conservatives”, WITHOUT A SECOND’S HESITATION or remorse.
Twitter provides examples galore, of the violence these so-called Tolerant Enlightened Ones wish to be visited on the Incorrect. They look to Haiti’s “necklacing” in awe and anticipation. They even use their real names and pictures when verbally expressing these psychotic urges, against any and all conservatives. Quite a few of these people would do most of us like Christian and Newsom. No remorse.
Google “wiki Christian and Newsom”, and try not to weep. Somehow, for some inexplicable reason, this wasn’t the international news that “Treyvon Martin, NO LIMIT NI&&A”, was. In fact, most folks have never heard the names Christian and Newsom.
Just like China, Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, Ukraine, and everywhere else these demons get their way.
The things they claim to “care” about are just tools toward the same inevitable end.
tom, all you did was prove us right. Armed individuals/teachers can and do stop school attacks. You tried to claim otherwise with your emotion based strawmen. So please spare us your hysterical projection.
One big straw house. You are nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are.
I don’t even need to reply to your questions because it’s clear you were deliberately playing dumb and trying to frame the questions in a way that supported your pre-determined conclusion.
And that means absolutely squat here, Rich, because of a little thing called the Second Amendment.
Tell us, why do you liberals, and your liberal/progressive friends, protect with vehemence the “rights” you pull out of thin air and imply that the Constitution protects them, yet the specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights are fair game for you to apply limitations on?
What part of “Congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” do you people not understand?
I still have a few reservations about allowing public school employees to have weapons.
In most of our system, conservative white males need not apply, let alone conservatives of any other gender or skin-tone. They get drummed out of the system just like heterosexuals were, systematically, for 25 years in the Catholic seminaries.
Public Schools — the system which has one HUNDRED TIMES the rate of child sex abuse as the dreaded Catholic Church, and is full to the BRIM with radical leftists.
And we should give them guns? I just don’t know.
Mao’s Great Leap Forward, from 1958-1961, four short years, murdered 40 million Chinese men, woman, and children. And it was the educators, controlled by the Party, leading the students to be the slaughterers.
From New Zealand, yesterday, but still. Stories like this abound here, too. And much worse.
And we should give these folks guns? No, we should take our kids out of the schools entirely. Any sane person would, at this point. To allow your kids to be watched and “educated” by these agenda-driven Commies is either stupefyingly naive or just plain cowardly. Homeschool.
In Israel firearms ownership isn’t a right. How would you lefties like to have to take a psych exam to exercise a Constitutional right such as free speech?
Notice how much tom and rich liked what the Israelis do?
As the saying goes, “scratch a liberal find a fascist.”
I proved you right by factually demonstrating that Israel has a much more stringent, and in my opinion sensible, gun control policy than the US? Do you really think you can pull one small element out of their policy, an element that has as much to do with who they are (a population with near-Universal military and weapons training) and where they are (in a volatile region) and ignore the other 99% of it, and that makes sense? Since you brought Israel up, let’s consider their approach for a moment, in comparison to ours. Israel, as a nation, actually does have a real, existential threat, as opposed to a Rambo fantasy-fueled fake threat dreamed up by an anti-government segment of the US population. Having a real threat means you respect guns as dangerous tools, not as toys. Respecting them as tools means you have the right tool for the job, and the right person for the tool, and no more of either than is necessary. A carpenter doesn’t bring ten power drills to a job site where one will suffice. In contrast, when you’re dealing with toys – toys that many believe confirm status, or “manlihood”, upon their owner – you want to have the biggest toy, and the newest toy, and most toys, of anyone else on the block. Having too many toys is never a problem, because you’re just playing with them and showing them off to your friends. When you’re using a dangerous tool, you limit the number you need to those that are necessary, because having twenty power drills lying around a job site when you only need one is nineteen unnecessary opportunities for an accident to happen. Israel obviously understands this. The US obviously does not. How else do we explain a woman living in a small, town in Connecticut with a crime rate that statistically approaches zero thinking that she needs a small arsenal, far more weapons than any single person in Israel, even someone on a settlement, would deem necessary or appropriate? You can’t have it both ways. If guns are dangerous tools, necessary for protection, let’s stop treating them like toys and have the ones we need for the job, in the hands of qualified, trained and responsible owners. And if they are just toys, well, i think we as a nation need to have our collective heads examined.
Well when I get as smart as you, I’ll put aside my Alzheimers medication and call Dr. Kevorkian.
My only question is why mom didn’t keep her weapons secured when she knew her son was of a mindset that led her to warn babysitters about him?
Do we know that she didn’t have them secured? Maybe she had them in a combination-locked safe or a safe with a key? Maybe he — since you know, he was of a mind to murder his mother — tackled her , and with a sizable kitchen knife to her throat, demanded the combination or the key? Or that he simply manipulated his mother into giving up either?
He’s TWENTY YEARS OLD. Not a kid. And murderous, and by all accounts very intelligent. People are looking at this angle as if he was six years old or something.
I would make a terrible detective!
If I had your low level of intelliegnce tom, I would call someone like Dr. Kevorkian, but not him. He’s dead ya know.
I love the games you think you are succeeding at playing.
1) It’s clear you are a bigoted against gun owners. Macho? Seeing them as toys? Untrained? That is how you stereotype them in order to justify taking away their right. There are many gun owners who train themselves. The myth that if one isn’t “professionally” trained, they are reckless and dangerous is just more lies spread by people like you. I could use similar stereotyping of ignorant and unintellgent people like you in order to take away your freedom of speech or voting rights. It cuts both ways.
2) Your strawmen. No one said the armed individuals would not be trained or screened. No one said it would be mandatory to carry a gun. Only you did.
3) In America’s history, there was a time where laws and rules existed that required people to pass tests etc. before they could exercise a Constitutional right.
They were known as Jim Crow laws (1877-mid 1960’s). They were implemented by dems then too. No surprise you want to go back to them for another group you clearly hate.
4) The Laws in Place Worked. You deliberately ignore how he went to purchase a gun and was denied.
Not to mention, he could have killed just as many by walking into a classroom with a suicide vest.